The President of the country with the world’s largest proven oil reserves, Venezuela, has effectively been cornered by the coercive power of the United States. Yet the President of the United States, leader of the world’s largest economy and champion of the slogan “Make America Great Again,” has allowed a defining opportunity of the 21st century to slip through his grasp.

Locking up a country’s head of state while overlooking the chance to unlock the future is how the current theatre of coercion in Latin America appears. In attempting to secure yesterday’s assets, Washington risks forfeiting tomorrow’s dominance.

The UN Charter and the Limits of Coercion

This moment compels legal scholars and peace-seeking citizens to revisit the UN Charter—the foundational framework of international law designed to preserve global peace. Article 2(4) is unambiguous: “All Members shall refrain… from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” Military threats, blockades, and armed interventions clearly fall within the scope of this prohibition.

Further, Article 2(7) on non-intervention in domestic affairs states that “Nothing… shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.” External efforts to impose leadership change outside a UN-mandated process are therefore widely viewed as violations of this principle.

Beyond the Charter itself, customary international law reinforces state sovereignty, political independence, and non-coercion. Economic or political measures that cross the line from pressure into coercive intervention are increasingly contested in international jurisprudence.

Washington’s Legal Case—and Its Strategic Limits

Washington, of course, does not operate without legal arguments of its own. U.S. advisers routinely invoke Article 51 of the Charter, asserting the inherent right of self-defence in response to indirect threats such as transnational crime, narcotics flows, or hostile external actors operating from Venezuelan territory. Economic sanctions are framed as lawful countermeasures short of force. Humanitarian collapse is cited under the political doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect, even while acknowledging that R2P does not override the Charter without explicit Security Council authorization.

This distinction—between what can be legally argued and what is broadly accepted—defines the strategic dilemma. The U.S. invasions of Panama in 1989 and Iraq in 2003, though different in context, illustrate the long-term consequences of stretching the UN Charter to justify coercive action. The United States may prevail in courtroom-like debates within the UN Security Council or General Assembly, but legal victory does not necessarily translate into strategic success.

Locking up a president risks locking up opportunity. This is not merely a legal issue; it is fundamentally about economics and business—domains that President Donald Trump intuitively understands. Sustainability today is no longer an ecological concern alone; it has become a decisive economic force.

Power in the 21st Century: From Oil to Systems

Global power is no longer secured primarily through territorial control or access to oil reserves—assets that increasingly resemble legacy commodities. Supremacy in the 21st century is being shaped by dominance over energy systems, material circularity, sustainable finance standards, and AI-enabled platforms that accelerate transformation. The levers of influence have shifted from coercion to competition, from sanctions to supply chains, and from intervention to innovation. China exemplifies this shift. India is emerging as another theatre of transformation.

Here, the numbers speak more persuasively than any political sermon. In 2025, global investment in clean energy is estimated at USD 2–3 trillion—more than double the investment in fossil fuels that the Trump administration has sought to revive. For the first time, investment in electricity supply—including renewables, grids, and storage—is set to decisively surpass upstream fossil-fuel investment. Spending on oil, natural gas, and coal is projected at roughly USD 1.1 trillion, barely one-third of clean-energy investment.

Add to this the accelerating deployment of new nuclear technologies, particularly Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), where Asian economies are rapidly advancing while Western powers remain preoccupied with outdated coercive strategies. According to the International Energy Agency, global clean-energy investment is projected to exceed USD 5 trillion annually by 2030—driven not by ideology, but by cost curves, scalability, and long-term returns.

Circular Economy and the New Wealth Equation

The circular economy—once dismissed as an environmental abstraction—now represents a USD 4.5 trillion economic opportunity by 2030. Advanced recycling, waste-to-energy systems, critical-minerals recovery, and industrial symbiosis are among the fastest-growing global investment segments. These industries are asset-light, innovation-heavy, and often deliver margins superior to the extractive sectors of the previous century.

Financial markets have already internalized this shift. Sustainability-linked loans and transition bonds have surpassed USD 1 trillion in cumulative issuance. Capital is not fleeing risk; it is fleeing unpredictability. Fossil-fuel geopolitics generates price shocks, stranded assets, and regulatory volatility. Clean energy and circular systems, by contrast, offer long-term visibility—precisely what institutional investors seek.

Reframing the Conversation with Trump

This is where the conversation with President Trump and his most hawkish advisers must change tone. The case for clean energy and sustainability is not about restraint; it is about leveraging investment to fulfil the promise of “Make America Great Again.” It is not about global responsibility; it is about global market share—a language Trump’s business instincts understand well.

From a wealth-centric, transactional perspective, the conclusion is unavoidable: fossil-fuel dominance is a declining asset, while system-level energy control is a growth business. Oil exports generate short-term revenue; clean-energy platforms generate enduring value.

Latin America: From Coercion to Opportunity

In this context, Latin America should not be viewed as a theatre of suppression or a relic of the Monroe Doctrine. It represents one of the fastest-growing opportunity sets on America’s near horizon.

The region holds nearly 60 percent of global lithium reserves, world-class solar and wind resources, vast biomass potential, and a young, urbanizing workforce. By 2035, Latin America’s clean-energy and circular-economy markets are projected to exceed USD 1 trillion in cumulative investment. Countries such as Brazil, Chile, Colombia—and potentially a stabilized Venezuela—are not geopolitical liabilities. They are scalable platforms for energy-transition industries, green manufacturing, and resilient supply chains.

Influence in such markets is not secured through coercion alone. It is built through financing, infrastructure, standards-setting, and technology partnerships. China understands this clearly. Its presence in the region rests less on ideology than on grids, ports, batteries, and credit. If the United States defaults to a strategy dominated by sanctions and coercion, it risks surrendering the most valuable terrain of all: future demand.

Winning Without War

A truly hawkish adviser to President Trump would ask: why fight over yesterday’s fuels when tomorrow’s economy is still up for grabs? Why expend political capital enforcing compliance when markets can enforce alignment far more efficiently?

Energy independence in the coming era will not be achieved by exporting oil, but by exporting systems—smart grids, storage technologies, hydrogen platforms, circular industrial models, and digital energy infrastructure that lock partners into American innovation and standards for decades.

For a president who prides himself on deal-making, the logic is straightforward. Clean-energy and circular-economy partnerships create domestic jobs, anchor supply chains at home, attract private capital rather than public subsidy, and reduce exposure to geopolitical shocks that oil markets have never been able to eliminate.

The Venezuela question, then, is not whether pressure can be applied. It is whether pressure remains the most profitable instrument available. The UN Charter was written to restrain war. The next evolution of diplomacy must be about winning without it—by shaping markets rather than toppling governments, and by building systems instead of enforcing obedience.

If America seeks to become great again—not nostalgically, but structurally—it must pivot from coercion to competition, from dominance by drilling to dominance by design. That is not a retreat from strength; it is strength recalibrated for a century whose second quarter has only just begun.

(The author is former Director, UNEP OzonAction; Coordinating Lead Author, Nobel Peace Prize–winning IPCC (2007); and Founder, Green TERRE Foundation. Views expressed are personal. He can be reached at shende.rajendra@gmail.com.)